Verb and Noun Morphology in the Spoken and Written Language of Children With Language Learning Disabilities

2000 ◽  
Vol 43 (6) ◽  
pp. 1322-1336 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Windsor ◽  
Cheryl M. Scott ◽  
Cheryl K. Street
Keyword(s):  
Learning Disabilities ◽  
Language Learning ◽  
High Accuracy ◽  
Language Impairments ◽  
Written Language ◽  
Past Tense ◽  
School Age ◽  
Relative Difficulty ◽  
Language Learning Disabilities ◽  
Typically Achieving

The purpose of this study was to investigate the use of verb and noun morphology in school-age children's spoken and written language. Sixty children, with and without language learning disabilities (LLD), each produced 2 spoken and 2 written language samples. The children's accuracy in using morphemes that mark verb finiteness (regular past tense, 3rd person singular present tense, copula, and auxiliary BE) was compared with their accuracy in using noun morphology (regular plural, possessive, articles). As would be expected, the typically achieving children, who were aged 7 to 12 years, had mastered the verb and noun morphology in spoken and written samples. The children with LLD, aged 10 to 12 years, also showed high accuracy in the spoken samples. On the other hand, they showed substantial difficulty in the written samples with the regular past tense, with errors in 26% of obligatory contexts. However, the children with LLD also had difficulty with the regular plural, with errors in 12% of obligatory contexts. For both the regular past tense and plural, all errors were errors of omission. These results indicate that finiteness marking remains an area of relative difficulty, but perhaps not the only grammatical difficulty, for children with language impairments in the school years.

Comparison of Two Reading Feedback Strategies in Improving the Oral and Written Language Performance of Children With Language-Learning Disabilities

2003 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 16-27 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda K. Crowe
Keyword(s):  
Learning Disabilities ◽  
Reading Comprehension ◽  
Language Learning ◽  
Oral Reading ◽  
Written Language ◽  
School Age ◽  
Expressive Vocabulary ◽  
Language Performance ◽  
Language Learning Disabilities ◽  
Feedback Strategies

Twelve school-age children with language-learning disabilities (LLD) participated in a study comparing the effects of two reading feedback strategies for improving their oral and written language performance. Children were matched for age, disability, gender, and general reading performance. Participants were assigned to one of three study groups, Treatment 1 (T1), Treatment 2 (T2), or Control (C). Children were pre- and posttested on standardized tests of reading and oral vocabulary. T1 and T2 participated in 6 weeks of reading intervention. T1 used traditional decoding-based feedback strategies, and T2 used meaning-based feedback strategies, termed Communicative Reading Strategies (CRS). Significant differences across groups were found for reading comprehension, oral reading, and expressive vocabulary measures. Pairwise comparisons indicated that T2 performed significantly better than T1 and C on reading comprehension at posttest. Though not reaching levels of significance, T2 made greater gains than T1 and C on oral reading and expressive vocabulary measures. Results are discussed with implications for using CRS (T2) with school-age poor readers.

General Language Performance Measures in Spoken and Written Narrative and Expository Discourse of School-Age Children With Language Learning Disabilities

2000 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 324-339 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cheryl M. Scott ◽  
Jennifer Windsor
Keyword(s):  
Learning Disabilities ◽  
Language Learning ◽  
Performance Measures ◽  
Language Impairment ◽  
School Age Children ◽  
School Age ◽  
Older Children ◽  
Language Performance ◽  
Lexical Diversity ◽  
Language Learning Disabilities

Language performance in naturalistic contexts can be characterized by general measures of productivity, fluency, lexical diversity, and grammatical complexity and accuracy. The use of such measures as indices of language impairment in older children is open to questions of method and interpretation. This study evaluated the extent to which 10 general language performance measures (GLPM) differentiated school-age children with language learning disabilities (LLD) from chronological-age (CA) and language-age (LA) peers. Children produced both spoken and written summaries of two educational videotapes that provided models of either narrative or expository (informational) discourse. Productivity measures, including total T-units, total words, and words per minute, were significantly lower for children with LLD than for CA children. Fluency (percent T-units with mazes) and lexical diversity (number of different words) measures were similar for all children. Grammatical complexity as measured by words per T-unit was significantly lower for LLD children. However, there was no difference among groups for clauses per T-unit. The only measure that distinguished children with LLD from both CA and LA peers was the extent of grammatical error. Effects of discourse genre and modality were consistent across groups. Compared to narratives, expository summaries were shorter, less fluent (spoken versions), more complex (words per T-unit), and more error prone. Written summaries were shorter and had more errors than spoken versions. For many LLD and LA children, expository writing was exceedingly difficult. Implications for accounts of language impairment in older children are discussed.

The Nature of Writing Difficulties in Students With Language/Learning Disabilities

2009 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 4-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Green
Keyword(s):  
Learning Disabilities ◽  
Language Learning ◽  
Written Language ◽  
Sentence Structure ◽  
Speech Language Pathologists ◽  
Writing Difficulties ◽  
Self Regulated Learning ◽  
Language Learning Disabilities ◽  
Regulated Learning ◽  
Genre Knowledge

Abstract Students with language/learning disabilities very often struggle with writing and tend to find the process very frustrating. Their difficulties with transcription, sentence structure, cohesive ties, self-regulated learning, and genre knowledge all play a role in this challenging experience. An understanding of the nature of these difficulties can help us as speech-language pathologists better facilitate students' written language success, thereby helping them meet the writing demands of the classroom.

Linguistic Trade-Offs in School-Age Children With and Without Language Disorders

1992 ◽  
Vol 35 (5) ◽  
pp. 1064-1075 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie J. Masterson ◽  
Alan G. Kamhi
Keyword(s):  
Learning Disabilities ◽  
Language Learning ◽  
Reading Disabilities ◽  
Language Disorders ◽  
Sentence Production ◽  
School Age Children ◽  
School Age ◽  
Language Learning Disabilities ◽  
Factors Influencing ◽  
Trade Offs

Factors influencing the occurrence of trade-off effects among linguistic components were examined. Several linguistic measures were used to represent syntactic and phonological production in order to determine whether interrelationship patterns would vary across measures. Linguistic interactions present in imitated speech were compared to those from spontaneous speech. Group effects were explored by comparing data from children with language-learning disabilities, children with reading disabilities, and normally developing children. Results indicated trade-offs between some linguistic measures and positive relationships among others. More trade-offs were present in imitated speech than in spontaneous utterances. In general, interrelationship patterns were similar across groups. Interpretation of these results in reference to current models of sentence production is offered.

The Magic of "Once Upon a Time"

1994 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 76-89 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kelly C. Hoggan ◽  
Carol J. Strong
Keyword(s):  
Learning Disabilities ◽  
Language Learning ◽  
Teaching Strategies ◽  
Language Instruction ◽  
Written Language ◽  
Speech Language Pathologists ◽  
Teaching Context ◽  
Language Learning Disabilities ◽  
Extensive Search

Speech-language pathologists increasingly use narratives in their oral and written language instruction with students who have language learning disabilities. Twenty narrative teaching strategies were located from an extensive search of the literature, and these are described. Because the strategies can be used at different stages of classroom work, they are categorized by narrative presentation stage as well. Language focus, grade/age level, and teaching context also are suggested for each strategy. Examples are provided for each of the 20 strategies.

scholarly journals Sequential Prediction of Literacy Achievement for Specific Learning Disabilities Contrasting in Impaired Levels of Language in Grades 4 to 9

2017 ◽  
Vol 51 (2) ◽  
pp. 137-157 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth A. Sanders ◽  
Virginia W. Berninger ◽  
Robert D. Abbott
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Learning Disabilities ◽  
Language Learning ◽  
Written Language ◽  
Literacy Achievement ◽  
Writing Achievement ◽  
Reading And Writing ◽  
Language Learning Disabilities ◽  
Cognitive Linguistic ◽  
Specific Learning

Sequential regression was used to evaluate whether language-related working memory components uniquely predict reading and writing achievement beyond cognitive-linguistic translation for students in Grades 4 through 9 ( N = 103) with specific learning disabilities (SLDs) in subword handwriting (dysgraphia, n = 25), word reading and spelling (dyslexia, n = 60), or oral and written language (oral and written language learning disabilities, n = 18). That is, SLDs are defined on the basis of cascading level of language impairment (subword, word, and syntax/text). A five-block regression model sequentially predicted literacy achievement from cognitive-linguistic translation (Block 1); working memory components for word-form coding (Block 2), phonological and orthographic loops (Block 3), and supervisory focused or switching attention (Block 4); and SLD groups (Block 5). Results showed that cognitive-linguistic translation explained an average of 27% and 15% of the variance in reading and writing achievement, respectively, but working memory components explained an additional 39% and 27% of variance. Orthographic word-form coding uniquely predicted nearly every measure, whereas attention switching uniquely predicted only reading. Finally, differences in reading and writing persisted between dyslexia and dysgraphia, with dysgraphia higher, even after controlling for Block 1 to 4 predictors. Differences in literacy achievement between students with dyslexia and oral and written language learning disabilities were largely explained by the Block 1 predictors. Applications to identifying and teaching students with these SLDs are discussed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document